Confirmed with Link: Flyers Sign Tyrell Goulbourne to 3-year ELC

[Rebels57]

Draft talent and the guys whose talent doesn't transition to scoring roles often become serviceable role players. Pretty simple concept.

 

[BackToTheBrierePatch]

Upside is pretty objective. If Raffl is on the first line, which many people around here hilariously believe he is cut for, Ghoul certainly has 3rd line upside. Maybe everyone forgets what Lappy brought to this team.

Ian Laperriere played on what was one of the best 4th lines we have had in a longass time. we havent had a 4th line that good since. Lappy wasnt a 3rd line player. not a every night one anyway. Zac Rinaldo played on the 3rd line last year FFS. that doesnt mean he has 3rd line upside.
I still dont think Ghoul's game translates into a every night 3rd line player. He may make it as a useful 4th line player eventually. may.
Ian Laperriere was drafted in the 7th round. a spot around where Ghoul should of been.

 

[FlyersFan61290]

Draft talent and the guys whose talent doesn't transition to scoring roles often become serviceable role players. Pretty simple concept.

Except that's not always true. Sure in the case of a player like Laughton it is but there are plenty of top 6 or bust type players. Straka is a prime example of that. Lots of talent and was a former 2nd rounder but he's got too many holes in his game to be an NHL player IMO and he's not at all suited to be an NHL role player. We saw the same with Akeson, he wasn't drafted but the point remains, lots of talent but he's a top 6 or bust player and unfortunately for us and him he ended up being the latter.

I'm not saying I would have picked Goul but it's not as clear cut as people are making it seem. The chances of picking a player that will end up making an impact after the first 2 rounds is kind of a crapshoot. Flyers decided they wanted a guy who they felt was likely to have an impactful NHL career or the players available that were less likely to have an impactful NHL career even if that impact could potentially be bigger.

Like others have said, a good role player like a lappy, betts or even a talbot can make a legit difference.

I'm sure all this has been said and again I don't necessarily agree with the pick (I don't disagree either, I'm just OK with it) but that's just my 2 cents.

 

[deadhead]

Just look at the two guys the Flyers drafted in the fourth round last year, Dove-McFalls and Vorobyov. Both are bottom six prospects like Ghoul.
Whereas Marody and Kase were taken later, even though they have top six potential.
Why? Because the bigger, less talented forwards have a high probability of contributing to team depth down the road, the more talented but physically limited players taken later are more likely to be boom or bust - either they blossom into top scorers or they never get out of the AHL, because while Leier may prove to be an exception, there are very few 180 lb checkers in the NHL.

 

[Tripod]

So you just showed that 3rd/4th liners can easily be drafted in the 4th rd...30 picks after where Goule was taken.

I feel like I am at a bar and some of my buddies only want to hit on the girls that are a 5 at best. Why not go for the girls that are a 8-10, you might get lucky.

After all, that 5 might be a 3 once the liquor wears off and you get in better lighting.

Edit: lol...Goule is #53....seems fitting!

 

[Hurricane28]

So you just showed that 3rd/4th liners can easily be drafted in the 4th rd...30 picks after where Goule was taken.

I feel like I am at a bar and some of my buddies only want to hit on the girls that are a 5 at best. Why not go for the girls that are a 8-10, you might get lucky.

After all, that 5 might be a 3 once the liquor wears off and you get in better lighting.

Edit: lol...Goule is #53....seems fitting!

So is Ghost in the nhl don't jinx him

 

[Tripod]

So is Ghost in the nhl don't jinx him

Ghost is a 5+3.

 

[tymed]

I'm not sure where anyone gets the idea that drafting for potential in the 3rd round is a proven way to get an at minimum bottom 6 players.

Just going over the 5 drafts (150 picks) from 2006-2010, an average of 5 players per year or 17% of 3rd round draft picks per draft have played over 100 games in the NHL, and a total of 6033 games played. Granted I did not differentiate between forwards and defence, these 25/150 of the best 3rd round players combine for .36 ppg or 29 points over 82 games on average.

119/150 or 79% of these 3rd round picks have gone on to play less than a full 82 games thusfar. I did not bother with points. Additionally, 71% have played under 40 and 67% have played under 10 games.

A real whopping 91/150 or 61% of these 3rd round picks have to this point either played 0 or 1 game in the NHL.

Now, I know numbers are tough for some around here but it appears to be a simple fact that drafting for high upside in the 3rd round doesn't tend to get a team very far at all. Ofcourse, there are exceptions, but that's exactly what they are, and few.

Further, let's be generous and call a .5ppg or 40 points per season a "top 6 rate of production", then realize that a massive 5 of these the entire 150 picks (3%) have managed a career to date at more that or better.

I would have gone further back than 2005, but it appeared to be more of the same.
Now, I know these numbers are flawed... but it's staggering to the point that it doesn't really matter and you need to check back in with yourselves about it and get real.

This is without including other factors such as, in our case at the time Ghoul was drafted:
-Having 5 of our 6 top-6 core players already in place up front. (G, V, Coots, Simmer, Schenn).
-Having little upcoming guaranteed middle or bottom 6 talent in our forward prospect group.
-Having shifted our drafting focus to stockpiling our Defensive pool with our higher picks.

Yet, despite all of this.... many here consider it absurd and unfathomable to draft for depth in the 3rd round. A GM and solid draft team sees a player that they feel is guarantee to be in 17% that actually go on to have a career, and this is ludicrous to people? Sure, if you're so confident that your guy is a top 6 player then go for it.

You gotta be nuckin futs. If Ghoul goes on to play a season in the NHL, consider it a steal, because the other 80% of the picks will have topped out as AHL fodder. Accept it.

 

[Beef Invictus]

Its simple.


Pick more talented players over less talented players when such a clear distinction still exists.

 

[Tripod]

Its simple.


Pick more talented players over less talented players when such a clear distinction still exists.

Amazing that people don't agree with this.

Draft 4th line upside....MIGHT get Goule.

Draft talent....MIGHT get Ghost.

You NEVER get the chance to get a Ghost like player if you settle for 4th line upside.

 

[Tripod]

Tymed, go look at the top players in your 2006-2010 sample from the 3rd rd.

You will see that the best players are all over PPG forwards in Jr or a College and PPG or close to it Dmen. Some of the names:

Marchand
Clutterbuck
Henrique
Weber
Killorn
Stone
Eakin
Reilly
Smith

The only exception is 2010 where our very own Gudas is the best 3rd rounder so far. But I bet Montreal is happy they drafted the PPG talent in the 5th rd in Brendan Gallagher.

So teams drafted talent, and got varying results, but a few got some impact guys. But if they never drafted talent, they don't get the reward.

Interesting note: in 2010, it was believed by many that we used our 6th rounder on Luukko just because of his dad. Lots viewed it as a throw away pick. Ottawa picked right before us and did not throw it away. And today they have Mark Stone as the reward.

 

[Appleyard]

The figures I put together the other year would indicate that a 3rd round pick has:

55% chance of playing in the NHL.
22% chance of playing 200+ NHL games.
16% chance of playing 400+ NHL games.

But yeh, if you look at the CHL drafted forwards between 2000 and 2010 who played have became 'legit NHLers' and were taken in 3rd round and their PPG draft year:

Matthew Lombardi: 1.97 PPG
Stephane Veilleux: 1.69 PPG
Tim Brent: 1.26
Clarke MacArthur: 1.07 PPG
Cal Clutterbuck: 1.03 PPG
Brad Marchand: 0.97 PPG
Zack Smith: 0.97 PPG
Daniel Carcillo: 0.97 PPG
Mike Rupp: 0.91 PPG
Cody Eakin: 0.89 PPG
Erik Christensen: 0.83 PPG
Greg Campbell: 0.82 PPG
Brandon Prust: 0.81 PPG
Colin Fraser: 0.75 PPG
Ryan White: 0.74 PPG
Adam Henrique: 0.67 PPG
Dustin Boyd: 0.53 PPG
Lance Bouma: 0.49 PPG
Zack Stortini: 0.47 PPG

Tyrell Goulbourne: 0.42 PPG

I mean, I hope Goulbourne defies the trend since the turn of the century and end up with a 200+ game, successful NHL career, I really do.

But it was probably not the best draft policy there in terms of odds.

 

[1865]

Waste of time debating this really, we've clearly changed our drafting policy post-Holmgren.

Still like the sound of Tyrell though. We just need to sign the following players to go with him:

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=46657
http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=107605

 

[Tripod]

Once again, Appleyard comes in, shows the facts, drops the mic, then leaves.

Great info!

 

[tymed]

Once again, Appleyard comes in, shows the facts, drops the mic, then leaves.

Great info!

You mean the same 20%ish that make any sort of career at all, which I had already pointed out, and then a bunch of junior numbers? Ok

 

[Psuhockey]

The figures I put together the other year would indicate that a 3rd round pick has:

55% chance of playing in the NHL.
22% chance of playing 200+ NHL games.
16% chance of playing 400+ NHL games.

But yeh, if you look at the CHL drafted forwards between 2000 and 2010 who played have became 'legit NHLers' and were taken in 3rd round and their PPG draft year:

Matthew Lombardi: 1.97 PPG
Stephane Veilleux: 1.69 PPG
Tim Brent: 1.26
Clarke MacArthur: 1.07 PPG
Cal Clutterbuck: 1.03 PPG
Brad Marchand: 0.97 PPG
Zack Smith: 0.97 PPG
Daniel Carcillo: 0.97 PPG
Mike Rupp: 0.91 PPG
Cody Eakin: 0.89 PPG
Erik Christensen: 0.83 PPG
Greg Campbell: 0.82 PPG
Brandon Prust: 0.81 PPG
Colin Fraser: 0.75 PPG
Ryan White: 0.74 PPG
Adam Henrique: 0.67 PPG
Dustin Boyd: 0.53 PPG
Lance Bouma: 0.49 PPG
Zack Stortini: 0.47 PPG

Tyrell Goulbourne: 0.42 PPG

I mean, I hope Goulbourne defies the trend since the turn of the century and end up with a 200+ game, successful NHL career, I really do.

But it was probably not the best draft policy there in terms of odds.

By the numbers, the Morin pick doesn't look all that great either. http://thats-offside.blogspot.com/2013/06/defense-defensemen-and-draft.html
Sometimes you have to take a chance. Hopefully both will be contributors.

 

[Tripod]

You mean the same 20%ish that make any sort of career at all, which I had already pointed out, and then a bunch of junior numbers? Ok

That's all you see when you look at Appleyards info?

You don't see how having a good Jr PPG helps to actually be in that 20% vs having a poor PPG?

Any reasonable person would look at that info and say "oh...I don't know this info. when I saying what I did. Now that I know, maybe drafting talent gives you a better chance of getting that 20% guys AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, one of the better ones."

Instead, you stick your head in the sand.

 

[Appleyard]

By the numbers, the Morin pick doesn't look all that great either. http://thats-offside.blogspot.com/2013/06/defense-defensemen-and-draft.html
Sometimes you have to take a chance. Hopefully both will be contributors.

Oh yeh, it is a case by case evaluation... and in Morin's case you had a 6'7 guys who skates very well and was over PPG in the playoffs in his draft year. It was, and is, easy to see how a player like that *could* easily be in an NHL top four even if he never gets more than ~20 points at NHL level. Also, while not particularly relevant in this case, Morin proceeded to have draft +1 and +2 seasons that in terms of PPG looked quite favourable to his NHL chances if you separated the numbers from his physical skills.

And while Dmen who got ~.35-.40 PPG in their draft year are not 'great' odds wise there are still multiple occurrences of them becoming good top 4 NHL contributors. Occasions when forwards who get less than .50 PPG in draft year have goe on to be more than 4th liners are few and far between... though ofc they exist, Lucic being the most glaring outlier.

Goulbourne has progressed as well as we could pretty much hope, and I think he can be a useful NHL 4th liner. (he has speed, defensively sound, can PK)

But I am very glad that we are no longer drafting Beaulieu, Rinaldo and Mathers type players every few drafts, or reaching for a guy like Goulbourne. (I will not put Goulbourne in the same category as those three... he is significantly better than those three are and I would have been fine with him in say the 5th round.)

 

[Curufinwe]

Defensemen scoring tends to be affected a lot more by usage than forward scoring. For instance Sanheim's draft year PPG was only .42 including the playoffs.

 

[Redpath]

Its simple.


Pick more talented players over less talented players when such a clear distinction still exists.

Except there are other variables to a player other than talent. This is why guys like Ho-Sang and Kylington fall.

 

[LegionOfDoom91]

We should have definitely drafted Jordan Subban over Samuel Morin.

 

[Tripod]

Defensemen scoring tends to be affected a lot more by usage than forward scoring. For instance Sanheim's draft year PPG was only .42 including the playoffs.

And in the case of Morin, it was widely known that he was a raw talent that was behind others in terms of development on draft day. The hope was that over time, he would not only catch up but surpass others with his upside.

But as you said, look at Morin when used on the PP vs not used. His points went up due to usage, not because of talent lavel.

For Goule...even dating back to Bantam and Midget AAA, he only had 1 out of 4 years getting to a PPG.

Anyways, hope he makes it. I will cheer for him regardless. But was still drated too early.

 

[tymed]

That's all you see when you look at Appleyards info?

You don't see how having a good Jr PPG helps to actually be in that 20% vs having a poor PPG?

Any reasonable person would look at that info and say "oh...I don't know this info. when I saying what I did. Now that I know, maybe drafting talent gives you a better chance of getting that 20% guys AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, one of the better ones."

Instead, you stick your head in the sand.

That's what he provided. Certainly there's a correlation but it's by no means a rule. There is hardly any legitimate top-6 talent in the 3rd round, that's what this digging around has shown, that's the fact. If a GM sees a talent that he considers a piece that to him is guaranteed to make it to and actually continuously play in the NHL, he should go for it, because that has shown to be an accomplishment by both myself and Applyard's stats. That's why we have scouts and scouting teams instead of accountants and algorithms for drafting, people with an eye for it can see a player's value beyond numbers and have a great gut feeling that he is an NHL talent, regardless of top6 skill. I take it that you cannot.

But ofcourse, you'll stray from your numbers and take other factors into consideration when they support your claims. As soon as the other factors go against your claims, you refer back to your gospel numbers that you like....20%. And pretty close to no top 6 players at all.

If you think my head is in the sand, yours is blowing bubbles in the water.

When 1/5 3rd rounders make the NHL, and basically ALL in bottom 6 roles, it is no longer time to draft for potential, but draft for most likely to make the league at all. If you're confident you see a role player with guarantee, take him. If you're confident you see a scorer with similar guarantee, then take him instead.

 

[deadhead]

Well, in some ways Goul was like Morin, his raw skills exceeded his on ice skills (i.e. scoring). Where you get in trouble is drafting size without speed or scoring skills (Klotz), or speed without size and skills (Rinaldo), or skills without size and speed (Akeson) - i.e. players without the raw physical talent to project to a role.

Goul has developed beyond expectations in terms of scoring, though he's a long shot to be as good or better than say VV, but he's faster and potentially could be like PEB (who not that skilled, he "almost" makes a lot of plays).

Is the 3rd round too early? In most years, though you have to be careful with skilled players, as Gagner shows, skilled players can break into the NHL, put up 30-40 points a season, and still be gross liabilities. That's because scoring is so highly valued that foolish GMs ignore "net scoring," i.e., the total value of the player - see signing Vinnie.

I don't think "scoring" alone qualifies a player to be drafted by this Flyers' FO, Hextall values defense and toughness (not necessarily size, but all you had to do is watch Konecny and Gagner in preseason to see which player had more heart), as well as skills. There is probably a "minimum" level of dog a player has to have to go with skills, figure skaters aren't going to make it here (which is why I'm curious if anyone knows if Straka has raised his game or he's just doing a better job "cherry picking" points - jumping on offensive opportunities but being MIA in the D-zone and corners).

On the other hand, "toughness" no longer qualifies you as a prospect, it's merely one attribute to be considered in the entire package.

 

[Tripod]

That's what he provided. Certainly there's a correlation but it's by no means a rule. There is hardly any legitimate top-6 talent in the 3rd round, that's what this digging around has shown, that's the fact. If a GM sees a talent that he considers a piece that to him is guaranteed to make it to and actually continuously play in the NHL, he should go for it, because that has shown to be an accomplishment by both myself and Applyard's stats. That's why we have scouts and scouting teams instead of accountants and algorithms for drafting, people with an eye for it can see a player's value beyond numbers and have a great gut feeling that he is an NHL talent, regardless of top6 skill. I take it that you cannot.

But ofcourse, you'll stray from your numbers and take other factors into consideration when they support your claims. As soon as the other factors go against your claims, you refer back to your gospel numbers that you like....20%. And pretty close to no top 6 players at all.

If you think my head is in the sand, yours is blowing bubbles in the water.

When 1/5 3rd rounders make the NHL, and basically ALL in bottom 6 roles, it is no longer time to draft for potential, but draft for most likely to make the league at all. If you're confident you see a role player with guarantee, take him. If you're confident you see a scorer with similar guarantee, then take him instead.

lol...so because guys end up as depth guys we should just throw in the towel and hope we at least get an NHLer out of the draft with our 3rd rounders? DUMB!

He was picked 72nd overall. Why jsut HOPE for a 4th line player? And that's IF he reaches his upside.

Again, I risk 4th liners all day for top 6 talent. And Goule has not even proven that yet.

Too job we drafted talent with Ghost. Missed out on a good fighter.